For a long time in American culture, it was common for white entertainers (some of them who, like Al Jolson and Stephen Foster, had a great deal of cultural influence) to wear blackface as a way of playing up the campy stereotypes. This particular form of entertainment is widely considered extremely offensive (it is striking, though, that among entertainers like the Wayons Brothers, whiteface is somewhat common). It is relatively clear that blackface sought to promote a view of superiority, and even those African-Americans who were involved were playing up the stereotypes as a way of profiting some economically while living in an unjust world.

It is pretty clear that those who engaged in this activity (especially those who were making fun of their own people) did so with a knowing irony that they were far brighter than the face they put on. There is a certain pretense that takes place when one pretends to be foolish when in reality one is not, and there exists on both sides of this pretense a certain unwarranted sense of superiority. On the part of entertainers who may feel compelled to put on a show for their living, there may be a sense of contempt for those who are the source of their livelihood but are too full of prejudice to be able to handle the truth. On the part of the audience, the minstrel show only tended to confirm their existing stereotypes and often the ironic depth of the performances was not appreciated, the show tending to comfort people into believing in the viability and sustainability of existing social systems.

In our present day and time, blackface is a completely disreputable sort of entertainment, at least in the mainstream. That said, the same tendency can be found in other forms of entertainment that are extremely common in our contemporary culture. Among these tendencies are a few forms of what can be considered whiteface. I happened to witness one such example last night, as my roommates are particularly fond of the WWE. One of the entertainers happens to be Bulgarian and there was a young woman who was pretending to be Russian, only it happened that she was a Gainesville-born resident of Tampa (more about this shortly), a common residence for wrestlers and other entertainers, and was not Russian at all. Yet her “whiteface” portrayal of an arrogant but attractive Russian blonde is not considered offensive even if it too plays into stereotypes.

Having grown up in rural Central Florida not far from Tampa, I have always been particularly sensitive to being seen as a redneck from those outside of the Southeastern United States. My own background and approach is most similar to that of my Appalachian homeland, where my ancestors would conceivably be considered hillbillies by less sympathetic outsiders. This sensitivity of mine has been rather heightened by the fact that my own family experiences have given me a great deal of sympathy for other hill tribes peoples [1] and the fact that my own upbringing has been used against me in the mean-spirited humor of others, something which I tend to take very personally.

Yet in the culture I grew up in, there is a similar mindset to that of the minstrel shows in a form of whiteface that while not culturally elevated is certainly not considered in the least to be socially unacceptable. This form of whiteface manifests itself in a variety of ways, especially in reality tv shows like “Party Down South,” the late and unlamented “Jersey Shore,” or “The OC,” as well as, “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo,” which was itself a spinoff of another example of this type of show, “Toddlers And Tiaras.” All of these shows seek to make fun of particular groups of people, whether we are dealing with Italian-Americans on the Jersey Shore, with people from Southern California, or, most commonly, people from the Southeastern United States.

Here too we have the same dynamic of mutual feelings of superiority between different areas. On the one hand, there are plenty of good old boys and girls of many areas and backgrounds to play like uneducated and clueless rubes or social alcoholics while collecting money to do so, more money than they would normally be expected to make (although some of these people are already independently fairly wealthy themselves because of their family background). There is also the sense in which someone watching those kinds of shows can easily feel superior to those they are watching, while simultaneously their watching of this entertainment rewards and enables and encourages the behavior that they feel superior to, making it more common since that which is rewarded is often copied, even if (especially if) it is undesirable behavior.

How are we to break these cycles of contempt and disrespect? First, we must address that our need for self-dignity and self-worth in a way that does not require that we look down on anyone else. Rather than constructing unjust social systems where we bristle at the dishonor we receive from those that view themselves as our betters even as we unthinkingly look down on others that we view as beneath us, we need to recognize that our worth as human beings comes from our being created as the sons and daughters of the Most High God, a status that does not require us to look down on anyone else at all, but to see everyone as a fellow future prince or princess in His Kingdom.

Additionally, we must become aware of the evils that are systemic in our world, that are not merely the result of personal animosity or hostility but are the result of behaviors that are built into the fabric of our world, including abuses that are designed to counteract previous abuses but that create their own violence in turn. We must recognize that while our legal and cultural systems of behavior are designed by people (although often in a haphazard fashion in response to crises rather than in an orderly and consistent and just way), they are often taken for granted by people who fail to recognize the difference between what is created, what has been corrupted from that creation, and that which is artificial and merely customary. This means that our view of the systems around us will be colored by our worldview and by our ideological and philosophical and theological commitments, meaning that any defense or critique of a social standard is likely to spring from immensely personal ground and equally likely to be a matter of conflict and contention with others whose perspective and commitments differ.

One of the key insights of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as a philosopher was his understanding that the line between light and darkness does not cut across groups of people (as is commonly, and falsely, believed by those who consider themselves ‘liberals’ or ‘progressives’ in contemporary political culture, and who regularly engage in identity politics and campaigns of selective political correctness) but rather cut within every single human being. We cannot place anyone, not even ourselves, on a pedestal that whitewashes their character and seeks to remove any blemish from it. On the contrary, we must recognize that the potential for good and evil exist in every human heart, and that our choices are immensely significant, even in those areas that might seem at first be be frivolous and inconsequential matters.

[1] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/from-one-hill-tribe-to-another/

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/this-is-why-we-dont-have-any-nice-things-in-kurdistan/

https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/a-personal-introduction-to-the-students-at-legacy/